Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Peter Hughes, Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA)

 Inhouse HR Representative

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001502

30/06/2023

The Worker claimed that following an authorised leave of absence between 2002 and 2006, she was removed from the Employer’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The matter remained unresolved despite engagement over many years.

This matter was heard and adjourned over the course of three days to allow the Parties time to resolve this matter.

The Worker provided written and oral submissions.

The Worker outlined that she commenced working for the Employer as a student nurse in 1978. The Worker outlined that she was fully contracted and a member of the Employer’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The Worker outlined that she applied for and was granted an authorised leave of absence for five years from May 2002. Due to staffing shortages, the Worker was asked to return to work in December 2006, which she duly did.

The Worker first contacted the Employer with concerns regarding her membership of the Employer’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme in December 2009. She outlined that did not receive an official response until eight years later, in September 2017. She was told that she was correctly categorised as a deferred member of the Employer’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme as there had been a break in her employment between 2002 and 2006.

The Worker maintained that she had been miscategorised on her return to work in December 2006 as a “new entrant” and therefore she was deemed no longer entitled to the Employer’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The Worker outlined that she could not have been a “new entrant” as, amongst other things, she was not provided with a new contract on her return to work in 2006.

The Worker initially sought retrospective restoration to the Employer’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. The Worker later confirmed that the pension issue had been resolved.

The Worker also sought compensation for the stress and anxiety that she suffered due to the prolonged nature of this dispute.

The Worker stated that she had given her best to the Employer.

The Employer provided written and oral submissions.

The Employer outlined that there was uncertainty over whether the Worker had resigned in 2002 or whether she had applied for a leave of absence in 2002. The Employer outlined that the Worker’s personnel file did not contain any documentation confirming the granting of the leave of absence. The Employer outlined that the relevant personnel have since retired. The Employer further outlined that the Defined Benefit Pension Scheme has since been closed. The Employer also confirmed that the issue of the Worker’s pension has now been resolved.

The Employer accepted that it took a significant amount of time to resolve matters. The Employer could not provide clarity as to why it took so long. The Employer stated that the Worker’s service to the Employer was never in question.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Parties.

The issue of the Worker’s pension was resolved between the Parties. Therefore, the issue of compensation remains.

Having regard to the submissions made, I find in favour of the Worker. I recommend that the Employer pays to the Worker, the sum of €6,000, by way of compensation in full and final resolution of this matter. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not constitute remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

Industrial Relations Act 1969.